Sign in to follow this  
garfield

Justice Dep't Reviewing Music Licensing Decrees

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, cixelsyd said:

Maybe this will help, then... quoting Don Pesceone from a DCW interview in the spring of 1982:

"As I said before, a sanctioned show is one which someone other than DCI would sponsor.  DCI acts as a booking agent.  Our earnings hardly cover our expenses.  For example, a sanctioned show contract of $12,000 would be divided up something like this: $8,000 or $9,000 for the corps performance guarantee, $900 for judges' fees, $2,400 for judges' transportation, performance licenses (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), etc."

So evidently, circa 1981-1982, DCI was paying the performance fees for all their shows, even sanctioned shows run by tour event partners.

Maybe that will lesson Gar's fears and tap down some of the overzealous OMG the world is going to implode hyperbole exhibited by others.

Edited by Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another serious copyright issue is the right to set the music to video, which is what DCI does with its year end DVDs.  As far as I know these rights are not covered by a blanket licence from an organization like ASCAP or BMI, like performance rights, and must be individually negotiated with the rights holders.  I understand that obtaining those rights can be tricky, and that some parts of shows have been cut from the DVDs because no agreement could be made with the rights-holders.

No doubt this is the issue behind the reluctance to release videos of shows on youtube as well.

Public performance is one right, releasing a sound recording is another, and releasing a video is yet another.  It is all very complicated.

The artists choose this.  The artists could always give their permission to use their works freely.  But they don't, and I understand why.  We should pay the artists for their creativity, and the music they have given us.  They deserve it.

Best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 5:39 PM, Stu said:

Personally I am for these three things:

1) For a time set by congress, ownership of a creative work, including performance rights, shall be exclusive (Copyright). Other than item 3, this is the only place Government should have a role in the situation.

The problem with that item, and not just for for groups like drum corpsm is that legislators can be bought by companies like Disney, and the public doesn't care enough about this issue to vote out legislators who have been so bought. The first copyright laws passed in the U.S., very soon after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, thus giving legislators the power of preventing works from falling automatically into the public domain, had a maximum duration of 28 years (including renewal). At that time, the average adult lived to be 60. Now the average adult lives to be 80. But the maximum duration of copyright is now anywhere from 95 to 120 years.

It should be cut down to 48 years. Everything published before 1971 should now be in the public domain.

In my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N.E. Brigand said:

The problem with that item, and not just for for groups like drum corpsm is that legislators can be bought by companies like Disney, and the public doesn't care enough about this issue to vote out legislators who have been so bought. The first copyright laws passed in the U.S., very soon after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, thus giving legislators the power of preventing works from falling automatically into the public domain, had a maximum duration of 28 years (including renewal). At that time, the average adult lived to be 60. Now the average adult lives to be 80. But the maximum duration of copyright is now anywhere from 95 to 120 years.

It should be cut down to 48 years. Everything published before 1971 should now be in the public domain.

In my opinion.

The problem is not the Constitution. It does state, "securing for limited times", leaving the time frame up to Congress. We could debate as to why leaving the time frame open to be set in a law was smart or not, but that is a different subject for a different thread.

And while I disagree that the legislators are 'bought' as you put it, the problem is not that corporations like Disney have influence. I see no fault in property owners doing what they can in legal terms in order to retain their own property.

You actually typed the real problem. That the public doesn't care enough about this issue to vote in legislators who will balance the time alloted for ownership with opening up arts and sciences to the public domain.

By the way, since this is an open based forum, to me opinion is implied unless fact is claimed. But I guess for the sake of others typing IMO may be a necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Stu said:

By the way, since this is an open based forum, to me opinion is implied unless fact is claimed. But I guess for the sake of others typing IMO may be a necessity.

I agree and generally don't tag my opinions with "in my opinion" (or IMO), but sometimes it seems courteous to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I agree and generally don't tag my opinions with "in my opinion" (or IMO), but sometimes it seems courteous to do so.

That's just your opinion.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.